After allowing things to cool down for a few days, I think we can try to resume the discussion. In the interests of starting with a clean slate, I've decided to start a new thread instead of unlocking the original one. I'd like to remind everyone to remain on their best behavior, and refrain from trolling and personal attacks. It's a controversial subject, but there's no reason why it can't be discussed calmly and rationally.

Should things begin to get out of hand, please contact mods@arstechnica.com and link to the post(s) that you believe to be problematic. Moderation is primarily based off of user reports.

I disagree. I think the original thread should be reopened rather than replaced. This is like trying to pretend the topic hasn't already been going on a long time. I also disagree with replacing the topic of gun rights vs control in general with a U.S. centric one that insists on excluding influence by any damn ferriner.

I disagree. I think the original thread should be reopened rather than replaced. This is like trying to pretend the topic hasn't already been going on a long time. I also disagree with replacing the topic of gun rights vs control in general with a U.S. centric one that insists on excluding influence by any damn ferriner.

The old thread is not being reopened. Period.

Nothing about the thread title should be construed to preclude the participation of non-Americans, or comparing laws and outcomes from other countries to those of the United States.

That would be the tax payer? I suppose this is the opposite of a buy back, the NRA would be rich (I think) maybe they should offer to assist? Having a gun is a choice IMO the fairest way would be to tax the gun owners. Would there be more gun owners than income tax payers in the US?

That would be the tax payer? I suppose this is the opposite of a buy back, the NRA would be rich (I think) maybe they should offer to assist? Having a gun is a choice IMO the fairest way would be to tax the gun owners. Would there be more gun owners than income tax payers in the US?

Thats not bad. Tax the people that want to keep the guns. It is guns we are attempting to protect against, so the people who get whatever passing benefit they can from gun ownership should fit the bill. I like it.

Who does the NRA think should pay for the extra guards and guns? I suggest that if their proposal did get up then there should be a tax on guns and ammo to pay for it.

More pertinently, why does the fucking NRA think it'll help? It didn't at Columbine or VT.

It's a retarded deflection by a retarded organization.

And the whole second amendment defence is crap anyway. If you didn't have armed insurrection against PATRIOT or drone killings or the on-going rape of the fifth amendment then your promise/threat of armed insurrection isn't worth a tinker's cuss in the first place. It's bollocks, it'll always be bollocks, and the second amendment needs to be treated as the lunacy it is.

In theory, OK. As long as, like drivers' licenses, it's shall-issue. That is, nobody can just subjectively say, "I don't like you or I don't like guns in general, so no, you can't have one." And the fees should be restricted to what's necessary to administer the program.

The pysch evaluations are tricky. They are, by nature, highly subjective.

It's 10% of the sale price of pistols and revolvers, and 11% of the sale price of all other firearms and ammunition.

I have a lawyer friend who thinks this sort of thing isn't going to last in the post-Heller era, although it will be interesting to see how much the overall climate changes now.His position was that excise taxes and other financial barriers to entry to an individual right are a violation of the equal protection clause in the same manner that poll taxes are. Of course until recently the individual right part wan't precedent so there wasn't much to build a case on.

The best thing about the NRA's proposal is that both sides can agree it's pants-on-head retarded.

The stuff about video games is obviously ridiculous. Plus the bit about a "national database of the mentally ill"... seriously? This should show why the NRA needs to stick to it's core mission, and not venture into areas they neither know nor understand.

The part about police officers in schools is at least something worth discussing. It may or may not be a good idea, but it's far more useful an idea than regulating what are little more than cosmetic features of firearms. At least police in schools is potentially useful regardless of whether or not the person who attacks the school has a pistol-grip or adjustable stock on their gun.

DrPizza wrote:

More pertinently, why does the fucking NRA think it'll help? It didn't at Columbine or VT.

There were no officers or security in Norris Hall, the site of the Virginia Tech massacre. Police responded within three minutes of the first call, but it took an additional five minutes to get inside since the attacker had chained the doors from the inside. Shortly after they got in, Cho killed himself.

Columbine had a School Resource Officer assigned, but he wasn't even in the building. He would normally eat his lunch with the other students in the school cafeteria, but that day he had lunch in his patrol car in the parking lot. He did exchange fire with Harris, who then went into the building. I can't seem to find any information about what the SRO did after that point, but most accounts are of officers surrounding the building and waiting a substantial period of time before attempting to enter Columbine was part of what taught first responders that they need to enter and confront active shooters immediately, as the previously accepted tactics for such situations was to cordon off the building and wait for a SWAT team to assemble. Of course that just gives the attackers free reign to slaughter innocents.

More pertinently, why does the fucking NRA think it'll help? It didn't at Columbine or VT.

I was under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that both Columbine & VT were quite gun free areas other than the shooters until the police showed up from outside.

School campuses AND college campuses have been gun free zones in most states for a long while.

I'm somewhat open to debate on primary school and high school campuses (though I am quite in support of allowing teachers and administrators who pass the requirements to carry elsewhere and take extra training to carry at school).

With regards to college campuses, what is the benefit of disarming a 30 year old grad student on campus? What is the benefit of disarming a 50 year old professor who can carry elsewhere legally and does so regularly? The argument has been "Hotheaded college students will shoot each other," being much the same as the standard "blood in the streets" claims that never happen in reality, but most college students cannot carry anyway, as it's limited to 21 and up in all states I'm aware of.

Finally, I have yet to see a response to the criticism of gun control policies that remove the equality of weaker individuals and revert back to "rule by physical strength." I don't see it being at all progress to tell a 50 year old female business owner, "Yesterday you could protect yourself against groups of armed intruders. Today, you cannot. Hopefully they don't rape/murder you, and your insurance should take care of the rest." Hope is not a valid defense strategy.

More pertinently, why does the fucking NRA think it'll help? It didn't at Columbine or VT.

I was under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that both Columbine & VT were quite gun free areas other than the shooters until the police showed up from outside.

Columbine had two (I believe) armed guards. I think one of them was on lunch break or something, but the other got into a firefight with one of the killers.

Quote:

Finally, I have yet to see a response to the criticism of gun control policies that remove the equality of weaker individuals and revert back to "rule by physical strength." I don't see it being at all progress to tell a 50 year old female business owner, "Yesterday you could protect yourself against groups of armed intruders. Today, you cannot. Hopefully they don't rape/murder you, and your insurance should take care of the rest." Hope is not a valid defense strategy.

The appropriate response is to point out that it was bullshit in the first place.

Reading the NRA's statement surprised me. I expected it to be bad - the way the NRA handles itself keeps people like me from joining in spite of a very general agreement in principle with their mission, after all - but I had no idea how bad it would be.

- Putting signs up "advertising" gun-free areas attracts criminally insane suicidal killers because, well, the hallmark of insanity is a sober assessment of risk vs. reward.- You should be afraid. There's another Adam Lanza planning his attack at this very moment.- Video games and movies... something something. Jesus fucking Christ.- Wayne wants to know what the "filthiest form of pornography" is. I have no idea. Pass!! - The media needs to... face their moral failings. That's what this is all really about.- Have there really been 20,000 "gun bans?" There was an exclamation point on that sentence so I bet he researched it.- Given its proven lethality maybe we should let the not very gun savvy media have the "one of the most powerful rifle calibers" thing re: 5.56. "Powerful" isn't always about ft/lbs of force at the muzzle, after all, and bringing this up as a point of contention in a statement like this is genuinely weird.- "Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?" Trick question! Depends on the velocity of the first good guy. I choose c).- A mentally well person does not litter a prepared statement with this many rhetorical questions.- The "foreign aid" crack is an interesting little window into the community the NRA markets to.- We should, during Christmas break and a pretty scary budget standoff in congress, allocate money to federally fund (??) police officers in every school in the country and make a plan to do it. Right now. For the children.

I was under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that both Columbine & VT were quite gun free areas other than the shooters until the police showed up from outside.

Columbine had two (I believe) armed guards. I think one of them was on lunch break or something, but the other got into a firefight with one of the killers.[/quote]

It appears one was a school officer in the parking lot (?) and the other was a local officer who responded quickly. I was not aware of that, not having followed gun politics closely back in high school.

DrPizza wrote:

The appropriate response is to point out that it was bullshit in the first place.

So we never should have moved beyond "Hope the stronger attackers who are in the process of breaking the law don't do anything else to weaker defenders"? I quite disagree.

I was expanding upon my above post while you two posted, so I've addressed some of the points which have been brought up. This Daily Kos article about Columbine has been circulating in liberal/pro-gun circles. This addresses the SRO (School Resource Officer) who was assigned to Columbine.

There was only one SRO assigned to the school, along with an unarmed security guard. They were both eating lunch in the parking lot in the SRO's patrol car, neither of them were even in the school. The SRO exchanged fire with Harris in the parking lot, but then Harris ran into the school. As far as I can find the SRO didn't pursue at that point.

Police tactics have changed substantially since Columbine, largely as a response to Columbine. We now know that the best thing an armed responder can do is confront an active shooter immediately.

There was only one SRO assigned to the school, along with an unarmed security guard. They were both eating lunch in the parking lot in the SRO's patrol guard, neither of them were even in the school. The SRO exchanged fire with Harris in the parking lot, but then Harris ran into the school. As far as I can find the SRO didn't pursue at that point.

That's consistent with what I found in a brief search as well. Armed guard in the parking lot is functionally no better than police in the parking lot, with the exception of knowing the building layout better.

There was only one SRO assigned to the school, along with an unarmed security guard. They were both eating lunch in the parking lot in the SRO's patrol guard, neither of them were even in the school. The SRO exchanged fire with Harris in the parking lot, but then Harris ran into the school.

The dude was right there, close enough to see him and get into a fucking fire fight with the dude. On two occasions by the time the first outside help arrived. On the second occasion, a passing patrolman joined in. It doesn't get any better than that. It's irrelevant that he was outside the school: the fucking dude he was shooting at was outside the school too. And what, are these NRA guards never allowed to leave the premises ever? Even to shoot at gunmen who are also outside the school, just like Harris was?

Quote:

As far as I can find the SRO didn't pursue at that point.

They were, unsurprisingly, busy with helping the injured and fleeing students, and calling for more police.

There was only one SRO assigned to the school, along with an unarmed security guard. They were both eating lunch in the parking lot in the SRO's patrol guard, neither of them were even in the school. The SRO exchanged fire with Harris in the parking lot, but then Harris ran into the school. As far as I can find the SRO didn't pursue at that point.

That's consistent with what I found in a brief search as well. Armed guard in the parking lot is functionally no better than police in the parking lot, with the exception of knowing the building layout better.

Obviously it would have been preferable had he been in the building, as was his usual routine. That being said in terms of response times, obviously "in the parking lot" is substantially better than being further away. Time in these cases is absolutely critical, it's not an exaggeration to say that seconds count.

Having an armed officer in the parking lot would have probably been reasonably effective today, when officers are trained to aggressively confront an active shooter. None of this surrounding the building and waiting an hour for a SWAT team to arrive.

I'm not going to say that School Resources Officers are a panacea, but I disagree with Peter's characterization that they're useless.

DrPizza wrote:

They were, unsurprisingly, busy with helping the injured and fleeing students, and calling for more police.

That directly contravenes modern tactics for responding to an active shooter.

Much like 9/11 taught us that complying with hijackers really isn't a good idea, Columbine helped teach us that responding officers need to aggressively confront an active shooter.

There was only one SRO assigned to the school, along with an unarmed security guard. They were both eating lunch in the parking lot in the SRO's patrol guard, neither of them were even in the school. The SRO exchanged fire with Harris in the parking lot, but then Harris ran into the school. As far as I can find the SRO didn't pursue at that point.

That's consistent with what I found in a brief search as well. Armed guard in the parking lot is functionally no better than police in the parking lot, with the exception of knowing the building layout better.

He was in the parking lot because he was monitoring the "Smokers' Pit" while he ate his lunch. Normally he ate lunch in the cafeteria with the kids. But the parking lot was a convenient place to be on that day, because it meant it was easier for him to drive to the student parking lot, which is where the shootings started, and which is where he got into a firefight with Eric Harris.

Then "modern tactics" are fucking stupid. "being evacuated" is the best thing that can happen in such a situation.

And your qualifications to make such a statement are?

Quote:

Going after an unknown number of better-armed assailants is a fool's errand.

Less so than evacuating everyone from secured, locked areas (classrooms) into unsecured common areas which are populated by an unknown number of better-armed assailants, who not only have superior firepower, but also may have set up traps in hallways and other common areas because they've had free run of the place because no officers on scene challenged them.

Then "modern tactics" are fucking stupid. "being evacuated" is the best thing that can happen in such a situation.

And your qualifications to make such a statement are?

Not being insane?

Quote:

Less so than evacuating everyone from secured, locked areas (classrooms) into unsecured common areas which are populated by an unknown number of better-armed assailants, who not only have superior firepower, but also may have set up traps in hallways and other common areas because they've had free run of the place because no officers on scene challenged them.

I see, so an unknown number of better-armed assailants are able to build bombs and shoot people, and with ample time to booby-trap a building are going to be utterly defeated by locks?

You haven't explained where he is in error so how about you do that before acting smug?

Police tactics have evolved since Columbine, emphasizing speed of action as critical towards saving lives in an active shooter situation. The exact tactics are a matter of endless debate in the police community, but there's near universal agreement at this point that the old tactic of surrounding the scene and waiting for SWAT teams to arrive costs lives.

There's still some debate as to whether the first officer should go in alone, or work in pairs, but at this point everyone agrees that you can't do what was done at Columbine.

Look, I don't care if you think that all civilian guns should be banned. However it's stupid to dismiss the lessons that police departments have learned about responding to active shooter situations, just to score cheap political points against the NRA. You're literally dismissing what are known to be the most effective police tactics, just so you can join the chorus bleating on about how more guns (even in the hands of the police) aren't the solution.

DrPizza wrote:

They're also capable of crushing each other in stampedes and bleeding to death.

Hence why lockdowns are the first response schools take to these situations, and then only evacuate once it's safe to do so. They still don't need police officers as glorified crossing guards to do that.

DrPizza wrote:

Quote:

They don't need a police officer standing there and pointing the way. An officer can be doing more useful things, like preventing more people from getting killed.

Yeah, they tried that.

And it works, hence why so many active shooter situations are put to an end by a police officer. Because they've learned from past mistakes, and no longer wait outside an hour for the cavalry to arrive while innocent people are killed.

There's still some debate as to whether the first officer should go in alone, or work in pairs, but at this point everyone agrees that you can't do what was done at Columbine.

So now we're up to two guards for every school, plus extras for when one goes on break or vacation or whatever? When you have a single officer, going in alone just means giving up the only person with knowledge of the situation who's in contact with law enforcement.

This is getting better and better.

Quote:

Look, I don't care if you think that all civilian guns should be banned. However it's stupid to dismiss the lessons that police departments have learned about responding to active shooter situations, just to score cheap political points against the NRA. You're literally dismissing what are known to be the most effective police tactics, just so you can join the chorus bleating on about how more guns (even in the hands of the police) aren't the solution.

But they aren't. Sending in single officers after shooters isn't the preferred strategy.

Essentially, no prior situation will be good enough for you guys. You'll just find ways to wriggle out of it and insist that "oh if it was just done better then this would be an excellent suggestion", because the reality is, you don't actually give a fuck.

In any case, the focus on school shootings specifically, and not gun deaths in general, is absurd. They're outlier events. It's much more useful to address the chronic problem.

They're also capable of crushing each other in stampedes and bleeding to death.

Hence why lockdowns are the first response schools take to these situations, and then only evacuate once it's safe to do so. They still don't need police officers as glorified crossing guards to do that.

Further, if a panic/stampede situation happens, a police officer or two isn't going to be able to do a damned thing about it.

Regarding locks, yes, someone could get through them, but it will slow them down significantly. Further, if they are entering an area with an armed teacher/student (if college)/etc, said armed defender has plenty of time to pick their position and tactics to engage the people that will be coming through the doorway (it's a pretty small region, and is known as the "fatal funnel" in room entry for a reason).

I see, so an unknown number of better-armed assailants are able to build bombs and shoot people, and with ample time to booby-trap a building are going to be utterly defeated by locks?

Getting through solid, fire rated doors takes time, and every room they have to get into delays them further. It also lowers the casualty count by limiting the maximum number of targets available in any given location.

Otherwise all they need to do is plant a couple of bombs or set up at choke points, and once hundreds of people are gathered in those locations during a mass evacuation, set it off. Quick and very easy way to do maximum direct damage, and then tons of secondary as those who were not killed or disabled in the blast suddenly stampede in panic to run away (quite possibly into the next IED).

A lone armed guard in the parking lot, under prevailing tactics of "Wait for the SWAT team to show up," is not at all what is being suggested.

Dude, he just happened to be in the parking lot as part of his general duties at the school. He wasn't permanently fucking stationed there. He took shots at one of the shooters on two separate occasions before anyone else was even on the scene.

They're also capable of crushing each other in stampedes and bleeding to death.

Hence why lockdowns are the first response schools take to these situations, and then only evacuate once it's safe to do so. They still don't need police officers as glorified crossing guards to do that.

Further, if a panic/stampede situation happens, a police officer or two isn't going to be able to do a damned thing about it.

Regarding locks, yes, someone could get through them, but it will slow them down significantly. Further, if they are entering an area with an armed teacher/student (if college)/etc, said armed defender has plenty of time to pick their position and tactics to engage the people that will be coming through the doorway (it's a pretty small region, and is known as the "fatal funnel" in room entry for a reason).